DNC Rigs Debates for Clinton Victory
The Democratic National Committee (DNC) under chairwoman Debbie Wasserman-Schultz has decided to hold a total of six primary debates, compared to the Republican’s eleven. The DNC sponsored just as few in 2008, but in previous years the majority of debates were unsanctioned events (sponsored by an organization other than the DNC), which in 2008, together with the DNC debates, added up to 26 debates and forums. This year the DNC instituted for the first time an “exclusivity rule,” under which any candidate who participates in an unsanctioned debate can be barred from all sanctioned debates. Candidates’ fear of exclusion from the sanctioned debates has effectively eliminated unsanctioned debates from the primary season, leaving the American public with far fewer opportunities to get to know the candidates.
Debates allow candidates to articulate their views publicly and contrast their beliefs and qualifications with those of their opponents. For candidates faring poorly in the polls, debates are their best chance to gain the support of undecided voters and rise above other candidates.
It follows that the tiny number of debates gives a major advantage to current Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton. Clinton, despite losing ground to the more progressive Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT), still holds a substantial lead. Clinton is widely perceived as dishonest, and debates leave her open to a number of awkward questions on her email scandal, the Iraq War, her ties to Wall Street, and her too-recent conversion to the LGBT agenda. Debates improve voters’ familiarity with the candidates, and while Clinton is already almost universally known, Sanders has enormous room for improvement in terms of name recognition. Polls say that a full 96 percent of Sanders’ supporters are voting based on his stances on the issues, which suggests that Sanders might have an easier time stealing votes from Clinton than the reverse. All of this together indicates an attempt by the DNC to hand Clinton the nomination.
Sanders has criticized the debate restrictions and launched a petition to increase the number of debates. Former Maryland Governor and current presidential candidate Martin O’Malley vehemently denounced the schedule as it stands, calling it “rigged” and “undemocratic.”
Bill Hyers, strategist for the O’Malley campaign, commented in a CBS interview: “The schedule they have proposed does not give voters— nationally, and especially in the early primary states—ample opportunity to hear from the Democratic candidates for President. If anything, it seems geared toward limiting debate and facilitating a coronation, not promoting a robust debate and primary process.”
Two of the debate dates also raise some questions. The first debate, on October 13, took place just after the deadline for voter registration in New York, which means that anybody in the state not already registered as a Democrat, even if they were impressed by a certain candidate, will not be able to vote for that candidate in the Democratic primary. The third debate is scheduled for December 19, the week before Christmas, when watching a primary debate is one of the last things on peoples’ minds, and viewership is certain to be low.
Despite growing resistance from voters, candidates, and even two vice-chairs of the DNC, Wasserman-Schultz has closed the door to adding debates or removing the exclusivity rule. A rare defense of Wasserman-Schultz’s decision comes from former DNC chair Donald Fowler, who argued in a recent editorial, “The current schedule was structured to put the Democratic nominee…in the best position to win next November.”
Was it? I could be wrong, but I think that any candidate so weak as to be hurt by a few extra debates isn’t strong enough to win the general election. There’s no excuse for debate dates that minimize the ability of the public to watch the debates and vote accordingly. The nation deserves a better look at the candidates than six debates will provide. The O’Malley campaign is right: “The debate schedule is rigged to ensure a Clinton coronation as opposed to a genuinely democratic nomination, and that’s nothing short of despicable.
A final quote from Wasserman-Schultz, when she was asked back by the Sun-Sentinel in April about her capacity to remain neutral as DNC chair:
“Secretary Clinton, I think is arguably one of the most qualified people…who have ever run for president. I was proud to support her in 2008. Of course as DNC chair, I will neutrally manage our primary nomination contest, assuming we have one. Secretary Clinton’s candidacy is another step of progress for women and for my daughters…. [T]his is something that I’m very proud to be able to point to when she announces her candidacy – but I say that neutrally, because I will be neutral during the primary. But Secretary Clinton’s a very special, a special leader and a special woman.”